[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 09:34:13 +0800
From: Chen Wandun <chenwandun@...wei.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: <hughd@...gle.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<david@...hat.com>, <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/shmem: check return value of
shmem_init_inodecache
On 2022/6/5 19:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 11:55:55AM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
>> It will result in null pointer access if shmem_init_inodecache fail,
>> so check return value of shmem_init_inodecache
> You ignored my suggestion from v1. Here, let me write it out for you.
Hi Matthew,
I didn't ignore your suggestion, some explanation is needed, sorry for
that.
In V1, Kefeng point:
"kmem_cache_create return a pointer to the cache on success, NULL on
failure,
so error = -ENOMEM; is right :)"
so, I look some similar code such as init_inodecache in kinds of file
system, they all
return -ENOMEM on failure, so is it OK to return -ENOMEM on failure :)
Besides, kmem_cache_create return NULL on failure, maybe returning
error code
on failure is more proper, but it is another job.
>
> +static int shmem_init_inodecache(void)
> {
> shmem_inode_cachep = kmem_cache_create("shmem_inode_cache",
> sizeof(struct shmem_inode_info),
> 0, SLAB_PANIC|SLAB_ACCOUNT, shmem_init_inode);
> + if (!shmem_inode_cachep)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> ...
>
> + error = shmem_init_inodecache();
> + if (error)
> + goto out2;
>
>
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists